One of the real joys of blogging is the mail, and since Obama was inaugurated, every single day I get spammed email from Clinton supporters about “how all my whoring for Obama” paid off or something to that effect, complete with a cut and paste of an entire Glenn Greenwald post (I read him every day as it is, folks, so you can save yourself the time) and a little note explaining to me that Obama’s human rights sins are worse than the Bush era and might even rival the Khmer Rouge.
Seriously. Nowhere does it seem to occur to them that as Hillary is working with Obama, there is no reason to think that were she President things would be much different. Nor has it occurred to any of them that the first few weeks of an administration is a touch early to judge the record and overall direction.
The weirdest thing is these are allegedly lefties- but at no time during the past eight years did I get the steady email trashing me for voting for Bush. Just weird. The Clinton cult is a strange, strange thing.
Richard Bottoms
I don’t know, I was pretty steady in busting your chops. :-)
MikeJ
The Judean People’s Front were always harder on the People’s front of Judea than they were on the Romans.
Romanes eunt domus!
DougJ
I agree. The Clinton cult is truly strange. I feel like I understand wingnuts, but the PUMAs baffle me.
As Wonkette put, at least the wingnuts have ideas, at least they have a fucking ethos.
Lee from NC
This post made me check out hillaryis44.org, which I haven’t looked at in ages. Oddly, they’re still there and just as batshit crazy as ever! Ah, good times.
John Cole
@Lee from NC: yes, but they are keeping hope alive at Hillaryis45.org. Love the message: “This space reserved for 2012 .”
Better make that 2016, buddy.
1jpb
You’re too kind to the nutty emailers. I wanted to see some choice nut quotes. They could have been been excerpted anonymously to avoid totally calling out the nuts, not that they would necessarily care one way or the other.
You could do something sort of like Hannity and Malkin when they showcase their detractors. It’s funny–even if I somewhat agree with a watered down version of the lunatic detractors of Hannity and Malkin.
gil mann
It’s a cult of personality that completely disregards its central figure’s actual personality. At least Jews for Jesus have an excuse in that Jesus isn’t on cable every couple of hours, disabusing them of their misconceptions.
Zifnab
Are they even Clintonites anymore? I mean, its kinda hard to call yourself a Clinton supporter AND a PUMA when Clinton endorses Obama.
Smells like a giant ratfuck to me.
Stuck
One upside for a Hill44 would have been her nuking Iran and getting that whole Apocalypse thingy out of the way, So we could concentrate on getting the Economy up and running.
Martin
Your penis stole our vagina!
demimondian
@DougJ: I have thought for many months that the undead PUMA movement was anticipatory rat-fucking. The hope is that Clinton can be encouraged to run against Obama in 2012, thus splitting the Dems.
JenJen
Wait a minute…. still, John? You’re still hearing from the "Hillary is 44" crowd? Like, as in, recently?
I’ll cop to being one of those wire-to-wire Obama supporters who took a bit of pleasure in cutting down the PUMA crowd from time to time, but I really thought all of that ended after the Dem Convention, and certainly after the announcement of Hillary as SoS. So, wow, you know?
You’ve got to be kidding me. Still, with these people?!
Ugh.
Edited to add: I’m with Zifnab. Back in the late primaries, I always thought the PUMAs were nothing more than a barely-disguised ratfuck; remember their behavior in the opening days of the Democratic Convention? Now, more than ever, how could it be viewed as anything but a ratfuck?
Atanarjuat
It’s heartening that some Democrats are not feverishly chug-a-lugging that rancid Obama Juice(tm) that most of you here gargle with glee. Moreover, don’t be surprised if these moderates swell in number as the Porkulus Package proves to be anything but stimulating for the economy.
-Country First.
Napoleon
It must be tough being one of those whack-job PUMAs knowing that your candidate proved herself a complete f-up in the campaign. Could you imagine what the last 4-5 weeks would have been like with her in charge? I would have been a reply of of the original Clinton years complete with an incapacity to name cabinet officials or get anything done.
Captain Goto
If "Atanarjuat" and "self-awareness" ever came into contact, would they annihilate each other?
Zach
Speaking of which, it just occurred to me earlier today whether I should check to see if any of the extremely high profile Democrats who ran their mouths off decrying the existence of caucuses for the better part of a year are actually following up on that outrage and advocating for primaries in the next cycle.
srv
Well, the Democratic party is filled with progressive poseurs when their candidate is not in office. I wonder what many in the Obamasphere would be saying about Greenwald if McSame or Billary were the deciderer now.
I know, I know, we DFH’s just need to STFU until it’s obvious to you serious folks. And what you pretend to not notice or discuss, little itsy bitsy things like 17K more troops to Afghanistan, well, don’t see any screaming for a draft now.
Balconesfault
@gil mann:
LOL – these are people who heard Hillary’s words at the Democratic convention:
I want you to ask yourselves: Were you in this campaign just for me? Or were you in it for that young Marine and others like him? Were you in it for that mom struggling with cancer while raising her kids? Were you in it for that boy and his mom surviving on the minimum wage? Were you in it for all the people in this country who feel invisible?
And responded: Hell NO! We were in it just for you, Hillary!
John Cole
@JenJen: I get AT LEAST one-two emails every day. Usually it is an entire Glenn greenwald post cut and paste with the formatting all screwed up, with the subject line of ‘I Hope U R HAPPY’ or “HERE IS SOME CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN” or today, “All the whoring you did for the Obama campaign has paid off: Obama endorses Bush policies.”
It rocks. The funniest thing is that no matter how busy I am, I read Greenwald every day.
The Other Steve
I follow a couple of other forums, and the general Republican attack these days is… "Obama is no different then Bush or Clinton."
Ok, now think about that for a bit. My first response is WTF!?
But what is the real purpose behind that attack? It’s to generate uncertainty. The old FUD game.
Something about PUMA strikes me the same.
Snail
@Atanarjuat: Still with the porkulus? Yawn.
The Grand Panjandrum
Go to to Agent Flowbee’s site and behold the awesomeness. LJ and his crew are working hard to make Red State and Malkin look like the sane and logical part of the anti-Obama blogosphere.
Balconesfault
@The Other Steve: I follow a couple of other forums, and the general Republican attack these days is… "Obama is no different then Bush or Clinton."
Where does Caribou Barbie fit on this very narrow spectrum?
Dave
@Atanarjuat:
As opposed to the first three weeks of a McCain presidency, where we’d be at war with Russia and solving our economic problem with a double-dose of Bush economics.
DAMN! Why didn’t we vote for that guy??
Zach
@Zach: Replying to my own post, here’s a 4000-word epic piece at NoQuarter from inauguration day: http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2009/01/20/the-lest-we-forget-series-the-caucus-factor/
Oh wait, never mind, that was a reprint from July 2008. Why the Rhodes scholars at NoQuarter thought it’d be wise to post an analysis that ends this brilliantly is hard to say:
jibeaux
@demimondian:
You know, I’m not a huge fan of Hillary Clinton, but she is, if nothing else, a Democrat and a grown-up. Barring a disastrous failure of the Obama presidency such that re-election would be nearly impossible, she will not run against him.
scruncher
I find them very, very strange as well. And baffling. I am, I think, they’re demographic: liberal middle-aged white woman. And I don’t know a single woman like them. They are insane, scary insane. I don’t understand them at all. I thought they’d calm down once the heat of the campaign and election were over, but alas … Of course, they have every right to criticize Obama, but I’ve been to their web site and it’s still full of incredibly venomous, hateful bile.
cleek
gawd. how can you stand it?
too. fucking. many. words.
Stuck
@srv:
You must be channeling D Chance. There is no surprise with Obama adding troops to Afghanistan, nor that those troops will be sent from Iraq. It is, in fact, what Obama has proposed all along from the campaign and since.
And personally, I believe that the poseurs are Left Wingers posing as Progressives. Of which I am neither, nor has Obama claimed to be either.
Other
Did they e-mail you this Greenwald post?
Cultism is unattractive whomever the figure of worship is.
MikeJ
Yeah it is. Who exactly do you think is in a cult? Who can you name who is pleased about the things discussed in that article? Name names.
gil mann
A right-wing comment with an undertone of self-loathing homoeroticism? No. Way.
If that strawman were any more absurd Christopher Lee would be burning Edward Woodward alive in it.
Other
Mike J:
I would ask you the question this way – "Who can you name who is DISpleased about the things discussed in that article? Name names."
burnspbesq
@Other:
That is certainly true of the Cult of Glenzilla. Why he’s got a cult and Scott Horton has readers is, frankly, quite beyond me.
Kit Smith
John, don’t be a tease. Post some e-mails or GTFO. :P
Wile E. Quixote
@gil mann
Obscure British cult horror flick reference for the win. You rock!
MacsenMifune
No matter who got elect you have to exert some pressure, as most politicians have a habit deviating from what they said in the campaign when they hold office. So any talk of party disunity at this moment is stupid.
On no planet can you call dead enders moderates.
Off topic but there is a whiteout going on outside my window, I can’t even see the mountains, and here this warm weather made me think winter was over. :(
DougJ
@demi
The thing is, though, it just makes Clinton look pathetic, like Ron Paul in a pantsuit.
I don’t get the PUMA thing at all. I almost don’t even find it funny because it annoys me so much. How on earth can you have a cult around the most plain vanilla, establishment candidate around?
I’ll stop now.
John Cole
@Other: I am not sure how I can be more clear. Every post by Glenn is emailed to me at a minimum once. If it really lays into Obama, I will get multiple copies. I have received today’s post several times, and suppose once the west coast folks get home from work, a couple more will be fired my way.
Other
Let me make clear that I am confident that the people harrassing John Cole would almost certainly not say a word if a President Hillary Clinton had done the things that "outrage" them now that President Obama is doing them.
Unlike some in this thread, I feel quite confident that Glenn Greenwald would not be among them. Or for that matter, Paul Krugman.
Believe it or not, there are some folks who really care about certain issues.
Clinton cultists are not among those. I think John Cole’s point is well taken. but there are other cults too. That is my point.
John Cole
@Kit Smith: I would never give out email addresses or IP’s. Ever.
I do usually respond with a “How is Hillaryis44.org these days,” however.
Mazacote Yorquest
Well let’s be honest, if Hillary had beaten Obama, and had acted the way she would have, there would be many Obama supporters e-mailing that stuff to PUMA’s. And the srv’s of the world would be lecturing us about realism, hard-nosed politics vs. "change," etc.
And while we’re at it, srv, did you listen to ANY of the Democratic primary debates? Did you not hear the major candidates ALL talk about troop increases in Afghanistan?
Don’t worry, though– that whitey tape’s coming out and then it’s full steam ahead for 2012.
Other
John Cole:
As I say, your point is extremely well taken. There is a deranged Clinton Cult who would be feverishly supporting everything done by a President Hillary Clinton.
But not all critiques of Obama come from deranged clinton cultists.
burnspbesq
Reading Greenwald is like what I imagine playing for Bob Knight must have been like. Ignore the messenger and focus on the message, and you’ll be fine.
Elie
–There have been some weird psychological characteristics that have surfaced in the US population and its ability to understand reality and how to advocate for an idea or a person.
Some of our behavior is almost cult-like in our blind obedience to certain people and ideas – taking on a life of their own independent of the feedback loop with testing reality, learning, building trust. In this same time period, religiosity has welded some of us into blind followers who cannot question.
Maybe its a passing aberation but its scary because of what people seem to be willing to believe and also what facts they seem willing to block to validate their beliefs.
Maybe this era will be known as the reign of fantasy
Comrade Darkness
Yeah, that’s why he signed SCHIP, told California they could set their own CO2 limits, banned torture, is closing Guantanamo, pulling out of Iraq, overhauling every meaningful federal agency, allowed funding for family planning to beneficiary NGOs, and told agencies to reverse the rules about release of information to make publication the default.
Because he’s Just. Like. Bush.
Delusionville is the only stop on that railroad.
valdivia
so I am new to this blog which i really enjoy.
what I do not get, at all, is how 8 years of undoing the constitution are supposed to be fixed presto-change-o in less than a month. What I find most disturbing is the willingness to immediately adopt the neocon stance that Obama is just like Bush, giving that idiotic narrative steam, and helping these idiots whitewash their history by making this comparison. Obama could not be any farther from that constitution-in-exile bs.
Personally, coming from a country where we moved from a hard core dictator to democracy successfully I would recommend people here to think about this–undoing the Bush disaster in the DOJ and his policies will take time, you have to figure out how deep the rot before you clean it up. 3 weeks and Obama is already Bush? Jeez.
MikeJ
I asked first. But if you’d like, well, there’s Greenwald. Pretty much regarded as a reliable lefty, yet he writes articles critical of Obama and is still widely read and respected on the left. Why do you think he doesn’t count?
And why are you dodging the question?
Common Sense
Getting bored, John? Begging for a threadwar?
myiq will surely oblige. He’ll be by any minute to liven up the discussion….
Michael D.
@John Cole: Then there are the Hillary is 46 people!
Other
Mike J.:
Indeed. Greenwald has made his position clear. Others have not. That is why I asked my question. I could not say with certitude who is pleased with it.
By and large, we see writings expressing displeasure with government actions, not so much expressions of pleasure.
Indeed, a lot of blogging is attacking critiques. It is a useful thing to do. Particularly when directed at the Traditional Media.
But it is not always that illuminating about what people think about actions by the government.
DougJ
What part of “Change We Can Believe In” don’t you understand? If not now, when?
God knows what these PUMAs want. Again, at least with the wingnuts, I know what they want: to turn the country into an all-white Taliban-style theocracy ruled by Joe the Plumber. I don’t agree but at least I know where they stand.
les
@Comrade Darkness:
AND, he signed a bill that gives a tax break to homebuyers who are LIVING IN SIN!!!! Tell me Dubya would do such a thing.
Walker
This is actually a matter of great debate.
He is hard-core on the rule of law, and certainly supports gay rights. But I have never, ever, ever heard him say a word on entitlements or economic policy.
Even when he opposed Daschle for H&HS Secretary, it was because Greenwald saw him as a corrupt lobbyist, not because GG had any strong opinions about health policy.
John Cole
I think one of the things that people lose sight of in the Greenwald daily posts is that while on almost every single specific issue, I agree with him, I don’t think it is as simple as doing what he wants on each and every issue. You have to look at the body of work the Obama administration is putting down. There may very well be reasons they acted the way they did in the states secrets case a couple weeks ago- they need time, they don’t know what all is out there, they need to think of an alternative, they are looking for a palatable and politically feasible way to make the change, etc.
I think that is why people think there is supposed to be some sort of tension between my support of Obama in the campaign and what Glenn is writing on a daily basis. For me, I think Glenn is mostly right on every issue, but I am willing to give the Obama admin a couple of months to put things in order, to figure out how they want to proceed, etc. (even if Glenn thinks that is a straw man).
I really hope that in April/May, either Horton, Hilzoy, Glenn, or the folks at Balkinization do a round-up and take a comprehensive look at where we are then. Something along the lines of “This is what has changed for the better, this is what has changed for the worse, this is what has not changed at all, this is what they appear to be tweaking and why, etc.” That would give some good perspective on things.
Meanwhile, I have no problem with people agitating like Greenwald for the things they believe in, because even if they are looking at things in an issue by issue basis and not giving the whole policy picture time to develop, they are at the very least on the side of the individual over the government. After the last few decades, with the war on drugs and the war on terror and the war on the 4th amendment, the individual needs every friend it can get.
Walker
I am going to get flamed for saying this, but..
Glen Greenwald is shrill. More importantly, it is Glen Greenwald’s job to be shrill.
By doing so he draws attention to very important issues that are being overlooked by everyone else. But right now, I am willing to cut a little slack (will except for the Geithner, Summer wonder twins) for an administration that is having to choose its battles.
Captain Haddock
Are you sure these emailers aren’t Republicans looking to stir the pot a little?
valdivia
DougJ–
Was that first part snark? My snark-meter might be off.
Because my work has me immersed in the field of democratic transitions with a specific focus on constitutional reform I have a very particular view of what goes into undoing great political and judicial damage. This is the thing–it is very very easy to over-extend executive power, to corrupt the judiciary, to sign crazy executive orders and create policies that go against the grain of international law. Precisely because one cares about the rule of law one cannot just simply say–I undo everything. At least that would not be what I think of as smart policy. It might take months before the administration can do something that comprehensively undoes it all and from what I gather from this administration they seem to be the ‘lets do it right’ instead of doing it in a hurry. I think that is right. But it will take time, and again, from my own experience I rather wait and have them get it right.
gwangung
Basically, the arguments, then, is over tactics and not strategy.
That does make a difference in discussions, methinks….
liberal
@burnspbesq:
LOL!
liberal
@John Cole:
I think the simplest explanation is that presidents always act that way.
Joshua Norton
They always sound like a hybrid mix of a ranting professional wrestler and a cartoon pirate to me.
kay
There are sane, very enthusiastic Clinton supporters. I found that the sane sector supported her partly because they felt they knew her, and so trusted her. They had followed her career.
I actually didn’t. Feel I knew her. Still don’t.
I might have supported her anyway, but it wouldn’t have been based on recognition, or trust. I have followed her career, I just haven’t gotten a whole hell of a lot of information out of doing that. Nothing like "trust", certainly. I can rattle off her accomplishments, and events, but they don’t add up to any complete picture, for me, anyway.
So, Obama was less of a risk for me than for them. I don’t know him either.
John Cole
Exactly. And more power to him. I don’t know if Tim. F. is reading this thread or not, but if he is he will back me up that for the past few years it has been a running joke between the two of us that a lot of people who have been linking Glenn as he trashed the Bush administration were going to be in for a big surprise when a Democrat is in the office and Glenn has them in his crosshairs.
Anyone surprised that Glenn is savaging the Obama administration when he thinks they deserve it is probably also surprised when the ACLU defends pedophiles and Nazis and probably just not understanding things on a very basic level.
Dr. Squid
Makes me wonder if BTD has some kind of wish where Obama, Biden, Pelosi, and Byrd were knocked off simultaneously.
Napoleon
@Walker:
People who call him a lefty kill me. He talks about a very narrow range of issues, very rarely straying from them, and depending on how you view his opinions on those issues you can legitimately extrapolate from those positions that he is a rather traditional "wine track" type of liberal, a libertarian or what I would think of as my dad’s traditional northeastern establishment rule of law conservative (except perhaps the gay marriage thing) (say a John Dean or Bruce Fein type). For what its worth the very few times he has strayed off the reservation he has seemed to me to be a libertarian.
For example he once stated he thought you should not have to get a prescription from a dr. to get what is traditionally is considered prescription medicine (he may have made an exception for schedule 1 narcotics).
John Cole
@Other: Other- if you click the arrow to the right of “edit” it will insert the name of the person you are talking to and link back to his post so people can follow your conversation.
Gus
Sexist!
Tim F.
Whatever John says, I totally take credit for bringing that up before he did. It was obvious from the moment that Greenwald started writing that he would butt heads with Democratic loyalists when their turn came.
John Cole
@liberal: Does that mean this is a BJ cult here?
Other
@John Cole:
Thanks for the tip John.
And I like your comments very much in this thread. FWIW, I endorse them.
Cheers.
Dave S.
I think the "cult" and the PUMAs especially are a combination of 1) people who saw their candidate go from a clear shot at the Presidency to a wrecked campaign in the space of a few months, with the attendant state of denial shading into conspiracies of a stolen nomination; and 2) ratfuckers.
J.D. Rhoades
etc.
As I recall it, the explanation for that was :she doesn’t really mean it, she was forced into it, "Obama’s thugs have a gun to her head" , you can tell it in her eyes, she’s a political prisoner, she’s a hostage.
I’m not making it up, I have seen all of those things from the PUMA/NoQ/Hillaryis44 crowd.
NonyNony
@liberal:
Yup.
Actually, I applaud Greenwald for continuing his … ahem .. shrillness on this, as well as the folks at Firedoglake and Maddow and anyone else who is beating this drum. But. If Obama backs down now, there’s no precedent and the next joker that takes the Oval Office can very well just go back to the well and start over again.
Whether he intends to or not (and I’m betting "not") Obama is telling Congress "it’s YOUR fucking job to stop this shit, so stop it". Congress is the one that needs to come together and pass the damn law outlining how the State Secrets privilege is supposed to be used. And I’ll even bet that if it came to Obama’s desk he’d even sign it without vetoing it and making them override it.
It’s like that quote from FDR that gets bandied around a lot these days "I agree with you, now make me do it." Whether Obama thinks that the State Secrets privilege is being abused or not isn’t an issue – the issue is that Congress needs to fucking do their jobs and make him and any other office holder who comes along use it properly. I’m actually kind of glad that his administration is pushing on this because it keeps the issue open and forces some conservative justices and legislators to take a second look at the issue now that it’s not "their" guy at the top telling them he needs to have the authority.
Ed Marshall
The PUMA’s are real, they aren’t intentional ratfuckers. I’ve been kicking around long enough to watch their decent. I think all of them are blog commenters which is why they didn’t amount to shit at the ballot box.
TenguPhule
We support free BJ for everyone!
Now that’s a change of pants you can believe in.
srv
@John Cole:
They were for Glenn before they were against him. And when he didn’t flip-flop like they do, he’s shrill and unreasonable.
Elie is right, it’s all a cult-fetish for 90% of the Republicans and Democrats. They really don’t care about issues.
liberal
@John Cole:
No, I mean he’s full of sh*t.
As for a cult of this blog, I’d go as far as saying it’s one of the handful of blogs that I visit regularly, which is as close to cultishness as I’m going to get. Pretty unique in that the bloggers and the commenters are both of very high quality.
JL
@NonyNony:
That’s an excellent point. During the stimulus discussions there were meltdowns on certain blogs about how Obama is selling out the progressive ideals. Now that the bill is passed, all is quiet again.
At times it is important to remember to just chill out and see what happens.
DougJ
Yes.
JL
John, Since you are the keeper of the comments of the "worse whacko of the year", please consider Cantor’s comments about property taxes and Michelle Bachmann’s concern about the rich people. She also said that Obama plan for the census was anti-constitutional and illegal.
burnspbesq
@NonyNony:
You may be onto the game here. However, there are some decisions that can’t be punted down Constitution Avenue from Main Justice to the Capitol.
As I said earlier today in a comment at Greenwald’s joint, "I’m withholding judgment until I see the brief that the SG files next month in the al-Marri case."
John Cole
By training, he is a constitutional lawyer, I believe, and while not a lawyer myself, that would seem to me to be precisely what a con law king of guy would do- determine what is and what is not constitutional, and when there is gray area or it is not clear or impossible to make a judgment, cede to the individual. The entire premise of the Bill of Rights is, to my reading, to limit the power of government over the individual. “Shall make no law, shall not be infringed, shall not be required, shall not be construed,” and so on.
If I am off base, fill me in. But it makes sense that if he went off the reservation from his narrow range of issues that it would trend libertarian. I am too lazy to look right now, but I would bet he has real problems with many modern interpretations of the interstate commerce clause and the like, particularly as it applies to drug laws.
J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford
@Captain Haddock:
The rats don’t fuck themselves.
jibeaux
Hm. The modern (Lopez) interpretation of the commerce clause, which is a throwback to the old interpretation of the commerce clause, which is basically a teethier interpretation: "seriously. It needs to actually affect interstate commerce", is a restraint on where the federal government can legislate. Lopez had a gun (and drugs) on school property, which violated a federal law which was found to be unconstitutional.
Stuck
I also basically agree with GG, at least on the few issues he advocates for. And it is not the shrillness that bothers me about his recent writings. It is lately he has seemed to pick up the same breathless projection of the Big Tent Demos of the world. That being taking a small event that appears on it’s face, sent forward in time with maybes , then it could mean Obama is carrying on Bush’s torture or extra constitutional jailings and renditions for torture. BTD does it because he likes Hillary and thinks she was robbed. Glenn does it because it might be a useful tool to force politicians into doing what he thinks is right, things that I mostly agree with. He is a lawyer and trained to use PR as a weapon for winning his argument, and I also think he’s a genuine Obama supporter. I just think using short term tactics like screeching that Obama is like Bush and his supporters are cultists that is based on only a months worth of presnitting, with weak and premature evidence, serves his cause less than he thinks in the long run.
low-tech cyclist
I’m pretty pissed about the State Secrets bit, but aside from that, I’m trying to figure out what Obama’s done that I, as a DFH, should be pissed at him about. And coming up empty.
On the whole, I’m just incredibly f***ing relieved to have someone in the Oval Office who can tell their ass from their elbow, and wants to move the country mostly in the same direction I do.
And what Comrade Darkness said @46.
Shygetz
Greenwald is a civil libertarian, or a liberaltarian. It is as John says; he advocates for broad personal freedoms when it comes to civil liberties. If civil libertarians are now considered to not be lefties, then the left has treaded too far into authoritarian territory. Fortunately, I think that Napoleon is just full of shit–the Democratic Party fits civil libertarians comfortably into its tent.
And as far as the PUMAs go…gentlemen, these rats aren’t gonna fuck themselves.
gbear
John, are you on the email list for this?
TBogg seems to be pretty excited about it.
Martin
Not sure about that. Remember how he proposed solving the lead paint in toys issue? Rather than smack down China, or do some kind of import rule, his bill made it illegal to transport toys (I think it was broader than that) that contained lead paint. Basically, he used the interstate commerce clause to take away the ability to get the stuff from port to store.
Stuck
@Shygetz:
Yep.
And likewise this Strawman ain’t gonna burn down itself.
We need our own blogging SuperHero to take care of this shit. Where is TZ when you need him?
John Cole
@gbear: No. But I did notice that one of the key speakers at Porkulus, the Porkening yesterday in Denver was named Dick Wadham and I chuckled because I am 12.
John Cole
@gbear: Why do they keep calling themselves center-right in one breath and then talking about crucifying center right politicians in the next? Can they not figure out that the “center-right” means Arlen Specter and Susan Collins?
srv
@John Cole:
Well, unless you’re Scalia or one of his pets. That man has contorted himself into a position that the 2nd Amendment reads as an individual right, whereas the 1st is not.
Napoleon
@John Cole:
One quibble and one clarification. The quibble would be (and I say this as a lawyer) regardless of how much constitutional law he actually practiced like all of us he had to learn it in law school, and my gut guess is that what you see with him has less to do with him having had any contact with constitutional law as an attorney, and more to do with the simple fact that he is an attorney. Over the years so Republican misrule members of the bar appear to have switched from a fairly reliable Republican group to apparently a fairly solid Democratic one. Amazingly I think it is because by its very nature the bar is conservative (in the traditional sense) and believe and care about our system of government, and that is what brought many of us to become attorneys. To watch the clowns trash this countries laws is painful for many of them. I think that is what you see with Glenn. The clarification would be as to the grey area, that is where a persons legal philosophy comes in. Clearly that is where Glenn would go when there is a grey area, but for those that would, say, overturn Roe their inclination would be the opposite.
If you mean because he focused on constitutional law I would say no (unless he sat on the Supreme Court in 1932). There is no reason to think that someone solidly grounded in constitutional law would by inclination be more libertarian then your average person. Now I happen to think Glenn is, but I could give you a 2 hour long answer on how a very strong solid constitutional attorney could be very sure in telling you that, to pull an example out of the air, the US is perfectly right in shutting down California’s Medical-Weed law. Most libritarians would cringe at that result (and I would guess Glen would since he thinks drugs should not need a slip of paper from a doctor).
TenguPhule
Words mean what they want them to mean. No more, no less.
TenguPhule
Scalia is on that short list of people I would not mind being hunted in the Arctic from a Helicopter using a highpowered scope rifle.
Tsulagi
Okay, now that’s funny. These people are one leg short of a full pantsuit.
Yep.
Cop out.
The issues and principles in that case are of a nature Obama and those now in his administration could have been thinking about at least in broad terms over the past few years. After 4 Nov they could have been thinking along more specific lines. Direction to take.
Basically Obama’s Justice attorneys before the 9th agreed with the Bush administration’s expansion of states secrets. That if they call states secrets a case against the government should be dismissed immediately never seeing the inside of a courtroom nor the government obliged to participate in pre-trial discovery.
Specifically asked if this was the Obama admin position the appeals court judge “The change in administration has no bearing?” The Justice attorney answered “No, Your Honor.” The position he was taking in court on behalf of the government had been “thoroughly vetted with the appropriate officials within the new administration”
Rather than reading between lines or thinking the poor dears didn’t have enough time to think clearly or prepare, I’ll take that Justice attorney at his word.
burnspbesq
@Napoleon:
Not to turn this into Moot Court or anything, but can you get there without Wickard? Because I think Wickard went too far, and should henceforth be thought of as a historical artifact from the Depression, which is of limited use today.
TenguPhule
Comrades, the first Victory of the Obama Revolution!
A few hundred million here, a few hundred million there.
Pretty soon, we’re talking serious revenue streams.
Next up, Whips and chains for UBS executives, even if we have to snatch and grab them from the Swiss.
TenguPhule
Anyone do any digging on this attorney? How do we know he’s not a Bushie appointed ratfucker that stayed behind to shit on the rug?
Comrade Dread
Sir, your words intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Literalist v. Originalist v. Living and throw in precedent to boot.
In theory, I tend to think the Originalist is probably more correct. But I’ve always been more of a fan of the anti-Federalists.
In practice, the US Government has pretty much followed the Living idea since the first President took office.
Joshua Norton
So do I. They basically said anything can be construed as interstate commerce, even if it isn’t. It was the same "reasoning" used in Gonzales v. Raich when they concluded that "home grown marijuana is a legitimate subject of federal regulation because it competes with marijuana that moves in interstate commerce."
So, the feds can regulate home-grown marijuana because it cuts into the profits of the illegal drug dealers that ship it interstate. Try to wrap your head around that little gem of tortured jurisprudence.
Stuck
Following on Cole’s meme about Obama having grander strategies for solving problems, I offer this wild prediction:
In the coming months, Leahy and Spector and the House dems will re-introduce their previous State Secrets Bill and it will pass with similar results as the Stimulus Bill.
In the meantime the DOJ will kick the can down the road, with the Bush cases imposing the SS Clause. At which time, after the bill becomes law, the cases with no merit for keeping everything secret (likely all) will be dropped. And the MUP will tell the wingnuts that the LAW made him do it, and Michelle Malkin will pen another "oh Sure" missive, then cheer lead herself into a blather.
Write in on a rock. Preferably where I can scrub it if wrong…
Lola
I think Obama would not had a comparable PUMA-phenom if he would have lost. Honestly, I expected him to lose. I think black people expected him to lose, which is why they were hesitant to support him. When you support a candidate you expect to be a longshot it makes it harder to be a bitter deadender.
I second the whole PUMAs are psycho line here. I have a friend who is still a PUMA. He is gay and youngish. He criticized Obama over Gitmo then I sent him a link showing how f-ed up all the case files are and that it is harder to close than we think and he writes back, "Yeah, I know." So he just criticizes to criticize. There is no logic in there.
I like Glenn Greenwald and enjoyed his last Moyers appearance immensely but I no longer take him all that seriously because I think he does not understand the reality of governing. He was also criticizing Obama for not closing Gitmo right away, but my feeling on this is the same as Obama’s, take it slow and do it right.
Republicans are already trying to blame any future attack on Obama’s defense of the Constitution so he has a huge burden on his hands to protect this country. He has stated plainly that he does not believe the two goals are incompatible and that satisfies me for now. But yes, I think Greenwald and the ACLU help offer a service. They are shrill and obsessed so I don’t have to be.
Atanarjuat
@gil mann:
Sure, Gil, that’s exactly what it is. Project much?
Since you obviously missed my earlier post on the "juice" thing, here it is again:
@Atanarjuat:
I begin to wonder if this blog should be renamed "Obama Juice," as that’s what most of you lockstep liberals seem to chug-a-lug with wild abandon. Your Chosen Leader can do no wrong; his decisions must be defended at all costs and his critics are just a bunch of poopy-headed meanies. Maybe someday some of you will realize that this "Us vs. Them" mentality is not helping this country in the slightest, but only accelerating the swirl down the drain.
You’ve heard that old saying, "lead, follow, or get out of the way." Leftists have chosen to do none of those, but instead remain firmly engaged in a partisan game of "we won, you lost!" You America Last dead-enders couldn’t be more spiteful if you tried.
-Country First.
Stuck
It seems to have already happened
If Newsmax says it, it must be true.
Tonal Crow
I suspect that almost all "PUMAs" are GOP trolls.
Jim
Comrade Dread
That’s nice, Dearie, but the grownups are talking right now. Why don’t you go outside and play under the bridge with the other little trolls?
kay
@Lola:
I second the whole PUMAs are psycho line here. I have a friend who is still a PUMA. He is gay and youngish. He criticized Obama over Gitmo then I sent him a link showing how f-ed up all the case files are and that it is harder to close than we think and he writes back, "Yeah, I know." So he just criticizes to criticize. There is no logic in there.
I have an acquaintance who was a PUMA. She voted for McCain. I spoke with her briefly during the general campaign. She talked up McCain/Palin but I felt her heart wasn’t in it.
You know when you speak with Americans who live overseas and they’re over-the-top in love with their adopted country? They won’t shut up about how great it is? It was like that.
JWC
I don’t understand either. I have just stopped going to the blogs that used to be pretty pro-Hillary, as they criticize Obama as if a Rebublican was elected. Just not worth my grief to read that stuff.
ThymeZoneThePlumber
@DougJ:
Well, it’s a cult, and all cults are strange.
But my question is, how big is this cult? How many of these Clinton Cultists are there in the country?
Write a number. Then draw a line under the number, and below the line write "300m". Then divide.
What is the result? If the result is larger than one one hundredth of one percent, I will be greatly surprised.
I once had dinner out while in New Jersey and got set upon by a couple who were bent on selling me racing pigeons.
This topic reminds me a lot of that night.
Comrade Mary, Would-Be Minion Of Bad Horse
Hey, breaking news from your northern neighbour. I just heard on the radio that Harper and Obama will be signing an environmental agreement tomorrow that can be seen as a precursor to a North American agreement on greenhouse gases.
The CBC interview and a link to the Obama visit blog here. Yes, we are a bunch of fanbois, even us grils.*
(Not a typo, but a subtle SF allusion.)
Just Some Fuckhead
If only..
Tonal Crow
@Joshua Norton: Ja. This form of Commerce-Clause "jurisprudence" is completely wacko. It reads the Commerce Clause to permit the federal government to regulate just about anything, and more every day as our private lives become more interdependent and thus "impinge" more upon interstate commerce. I think that the Constitution was intended to establish a rough balance between the feds, the states, and the individual, and to permit the individual to police the feds and the states. (Davies, "Recovering the Original Fourth Amendment" says something similar about the 4th Amendment). Reading the Commerce Clause as a general police power badly rewrote this balance, and has, further, largely revoked the 10th and 9th Amendments.
Just Some Fuckhead
BTW, I fucking hate Glenn Greenwald. It’s not idealogical.
Reverend Dennis
Shit, you’re just jealous because Obama didn’t dodge sniper fire in Tuzla and negotiate the end of the Troubles in Northern Ireland.
ThymeZoneThePlumber
Yes, and the way it works is, you give the blow jobs, and we take them.
MMM
John Cole hates women.
Or is that backwards?
Laura W
@Elie:
AKA, romantic relationships.
Stuck
@Comrade Mary, Would-Be Minion Of Bad Horse:
Nothing good can come when a Canadian Tory and an American Socialist sign stuff together. It’s like Flubber and Cheetos in the same bowl. And that means whatever you want it to mean.
Xanthippas
I’m enjoying this discussion of Greewald. I’ve read Greenwald for years now and I completely disagree with characterizations that he’s "shrill" in some manner. He can by hyper-sarcastic, but I challenge anyone here to point out any substantive criticisms of either Bush or Obama that Greenwald has made that they disagree with.
The problem I have with Greenwald lately is that he’s aiming his broadsides at those on the left who are enabling Obama’s bad behavior (state secrets, et al) by trying to belittle criticism of the Obama administration. The problem is, he doesn’t link to anyone who’s doing this. In that post, and the one he wrote on liberal advocacy groups selling out by backing the stimulus package (my words, not his) he doesn’t link to anyone who he accuses of engaging in this behavior. I don’t disagree that there’s somebody out there doing this, but I honestly do not see the sort of widespread non-criticism of Obama that he seems to think exists, and I read a lot of blogs. Greenwald is a thoroughly logical and methodical writer, but this argument he’s making is rather…well, strawman-ish.
LanceThruster
I like how the Hillary-ites decry sexism at every turn but will let fly a constant stream of male-bashing sexist language. Over at Tennessee Guerilla Woman blog they are convinced I coined my name just to piss them off (I’ve had the nick since ’81 – sometimes a cigar is just a cigar) as they then proceed to make disparaging remarks about penis size and erectile function.
I counter by stating that Hillary must have wanted to piss them off too by using the middle name "ROD-ham."
How sexist can you get?
Media Browski
@srv:
Edited for clarity.
@Atanarjuat:
Yes, because the "Woo PUMAs with an Alaskan Hillbilly Moron Demon" worked out so well in 2008.
But, to the main debate, I think people are missing the point by trying to ascertain where on some linear political scale the PUMAs are. They’re just silly racists trying to cover their racism with Hillary, Greenwald (who I abhor, John, how CAN you stand his writing? It’s what I imagine Ross Gellar of Friends would write like if he were real, and a blogger, and employed by the freak-show that is Salon), and Krugman (who’s obvious disappointment at not being appointed by HRC is almost too painful to be amusing. Almost.).
DougJ
Not many, but they all have blogs.
Media Browski
@Dr. Squid: Ah, now there’s a blogger I love to watch squirm. After driving their site traffic into the shitter and banning half their commenters . . . ah schadenfreude!
DougJ
Also, I used to comment at Swampland a lot and about half the people there were Clinton cultists. They fell into two groups: youngish gay men and middle-aged women.
ThymeZoneThePlumber
@DougJ: Ah.
The new rule is, on the Internet, everyone will be famous for 15 packets.
Stuck
@DougJ:
The number needed to screw in a Palin.
Just Some Fuckhead
Update #1: I still hate Glenn Greenwald.
Media Browski
@Atanarjuat: Are all you GOPtards one-trick ponies? Porkulus, Obama Juice lalalalala TAX CUTS! Also.
Media Browski
@Just Some Fuckhead: I second that. Also. PORKULUS!
Jay B.
Elie is right, it’s all a cult-fetish for 90% of the Republicans and Democrats. They really don’t care about issues.
Right. Well, that or some smug poseur "progressives" only give a shit about their pet issue and ignore all the other issues that are being addressed and dealt with in a thoughtful way. So in their world, Obama is a complete failure because of the state secrets thing — which is very disappointing without a doubt — while overlooking the giant strides he has taken.
Greenwald is a very, very important voice. And I hope the Administration readdresses state secrets. But that’s one of a million things or so going on (also, he campaigned on an Afghanistan troop increase — which I’m sure you were too wrapped up in Knowing the Total Truth Compared to The Rest of Us to notice — and it’s easily argued that the troop increase will lower civilian deaths because they won’t be relying on predator drones as much, but again…that’s only if you "know" about the issue) and as such, it’s pretty important to take stock of how his presidency is playing out in total.
Just Some Fuckhead
Update #2: A fellow commenter aptly points out the similarities between romantic relationships and psychotic behavior, specifically the behavior one engages in when one is either seeking affirmation for one’s own viewpoint or actively suppressing information that may be contrary to the view one has chosen to espouse.
ThymeZoneThePlumber
@Media Browski:
The answer is, yes.
For those of us who are in touch with reality, it works like this. I figure I have a 50% chance of being without a job in the next year.
If anything the government does gets that down to 10% or less, then the government has served me admirably and I will kiss its entire ass.
The GOP seems to want to run around yelling Get Off Our Lawn all day. Sorry elephants, that ain’t helpin’ me.
Indylib
OT There are some really fucking idiotic wingnut Governors out there.
I can’t imagine any of them planning to refuse stim money has plans on running for Gov. again. They all want to pass the "fiscally responsible" wingnut purity test so they can out-asshole each other in the R primaries in 2012. Must suck to live in their states.
Chuck Butcher
I have to admit I thought this was the gem in the piece. I can’t think of a demonstration of this on his part. What he has demonstrated is that opposing him here is only less bloody than doing it in person. I have to admit that I own firearms because there are just enough of this sort around to let someone go a bit farther than GWB and I do have my limits…
I do remember one of his posts that postulated the left was composed of lay about pussies. It would be a very good idea to NOT take this as an invitation to try me out in person.
Xanthippas
To quibble with your side point, I don’t think that’s so easily argued. Given all the troops we had in Iraq, we never quit bombing the hell out of civilians. I do agree that more troops on the ground can reduce the need to rely extensively on airstrikes, but that doesn’t mean we won’t without a significant change in airpower strategy that I’ve seen no sign of yet.
Just Some Fuckhead
Update #3: Media Browski from the comments agrees with Update #1.
headpan
Remember when "denouncing" was all the rage? (think Rev. Wright). Couldn’t Hill come out and at least say, hey, I appreciated your support in the primaries, but now it’s time for everybody to get on board. *That* is the best way you can support me since I’m working for this guy now and he’s working for all of us. Shit. Fuck. I was nuts about Howard Dean but once he lost he was on the bandwagon for Kerry immediately and entreated all his followers to support Kerry. And most of them, instead of nursing hurt feelings, did just that.
I’m not saying she is *obligated* to do that or that it would change things, but I think they need to hear something from their goddess.
Indeed, I find it very bizarre John.
Comrade Kevin
@Just Some Fuckhead: I’m sure everyone saw it the first time.
Reverend Dennis
You forgot to mention "Class warfare," and "Just relax and enjoy it," also.
Stuck
@Comrade Kevin:
Personally, I think it’s entertaining when Fuckhead Live-blogs himself and others. It’s cutting edge and action packed.
Andy K
@Chuck Butcher:
Please don’t give Oki any reason to copy-and-paste that again.
Laura W
@Stuck: And delightfully zesty!
Is there room on your bench?
I got vodka and fresh lime. (BIG-assed limes, too. Not those scrawny suckers.)
Elie
NonyNony and Valdivia —
Great comments and perspectives from both of you. Very refreshing to read comments that seem to understand the underlying complexity and purpose of strategy in a given stand — that the rule of law — not for its own sake, but to be designed with wisdom, requires many people in our system to function and TAKES A LITTLE TIME, for Pete’s sake..
One of the real frustrations that I have experienced over the last month or so is reading comment after comment across the blogs of so called "experts" who don’t seem to know one jot about how policy is actually made and governance. We grabbed our ankles and took it for 8 years and it seems at the end of the day, we now expect our guy to run things the same way.. Do this, Do that and do it MY way…
Getting really concerned that maybe WE are not ready for democratic governance….
Stuck
@Laura W:
Always room for you LauraW. Just don’t tell JSF, you know how he gets.:)
Reverend Dennis
What has four legs, four eyes, twelve teeth, and weighs 650 pounds?
A PUMA and a Palin supporter out on a date.
ThymeZoneThePlumber
You are going to need one of these.
burnspbesq
@Joshua Norton:
And then try to wrap your head around the fact that Stevens wrote the majority opinion, Scalia concurred, and Rehnquist and Thomas dissented.
Laura W
@Elie:
Or mature, supportive, loving, lifelong partnerships.
(Sorry. I have some sort of parallel theme running through your comments, which you know I enjoy and admire.)
Media Browski
@Elie: I refer to this phenomena as PTSD Progressive Syndrome. The pervert’s veto (the logical fallacy of arguing that something is bad because a bad person could misuse it) has kind of been invalidated by the Bush Administration’s incredible record of torture, incompetence, lies, and ruined infrastructure. Some progressives are really having trouble adjusting to the idea of honest, intelligent governance.
gbear
When the joys of blogging become an addiction…
Svensker
@Media Browski:
Big bum, eh?
valdivia
@Elie:
Thanks Elie. And I agree with you about the effects of the last 8 years on our ability to understand how governance happens and to appreciate what is happening and is not happening. One of the things that baffle me, truly, is how some journalists have spent their time speculating mostly, creating a frenzy on issues and things that have not happened yet. So this weekend we saw quite a few blogs spurred by some comment from the Village about Obama doing a signing statement about corporate salary caps. The amount of ink and vitriol about Obama the traitor that got spilled on this was pretty amazing and all based on pure spinning and speculation. In the end it did not happen. So why the freak out? Not amonth yet and Obama is already a failure, not committed to transparency, not committed to the rule of law, embracing the constitution-in-exile ideology of the federalist society, etc etc.
A quick example from my part of the world–did you know that Chile is still ruled by the Pinochet era constitution? If we were measuring it by the standards of a lot of bloggers and pundits then I guess Chile is still a dictatorship, an utter failure right?
My point is not to compare Bush to Pinochet or imply that we should wait one full presidential term, simply that I think the Justice crew in this administration is committed to changing things but it will take time to review everything that went wrong, which is quite a lot.
Criticism is necessary but I find Greenwald too hysterical to be effective. Kind of like the boy who cried wolf all the time.
JL
@Reverend Dennis:
Not all Palin supporters are toothless. (spineless, maybe)
burnspbesq
@valdivia:
Can you explain to us how you got three sane Presidents in a row? That’s a trick we would do well to emulate.
Elie
Laura W:
Ha,Ha,ha, — you got me — so true that thread. You see it clearly
I strongly believe in building community and awareness of our commonalities. One thread in a cloth is weak while woven together… Not to make too big a deal of it..
I am hoping for us, wishing us luck and willing to work for meals…
Stuck
@valdivia:
This is a thoughtful comment. Gracias.
Adam
Update #4: BJ Commentariat fails to recognize parody of Glenn Greenwald.
Stuck
@Comrade Mary, Would-Be Minion Of Bad Horse:
@Stuck:
After re-reading my previous comment about Harper-Obama signing the environmental agreement, it sounded kind of like I was mocking it and you. It wasn’t meant to.
Ed Marshall
Yeah, they aren’t crypt-GOP trolls, I’ve known people who were kicking around the blogs in the run up to the Ira
valdivia
@burnspbesq:
because we are socialists? just kidding.
We have had 4 very sane presidents actually (Aylwin, Frei, Lagos and Bachelet). They have all come from the same party-alliance (the concertacion) which brings together the Christian Democrats and the Socialists and is the block that succeeded in defeating Pinochet in the 1988 Referendum. The first two were from the CD and the last two have been socialists. I would argue that Lagos has been the best of the bunch and Bachelet the worse (very bad administrator, lots of cabinet drama, which is too bad because I like her but that has nothing to do with her governing ability). Part of the success has stemmed I think from this alliance, and very ‘grown up’ governance. Lots of work for progressive causes (Chile is the only country making a dent on inequality not just poverty, the scourge of Latin America–note that Venezuela does not fit this category because their numbers are not reliable or transparent). And they did this by sticking pretty closely to the dreaded policies of the Washington Consensus. Yet they managed to be progressive and do their thing too even in this very restricted policy environment.
now the question is–is the concertacion dead now after the bad showing of bachelet? some argue that the CD and the socialists should split and see how that works.
Last but not least–I think that the effect of living under Pinochet since 73 had a way of sobering a lot of people about what is feasible and what is not. As contentious as this will be I have to say it–Chile had no choice (because of the way democracy came and the way the constitution was written) to prosecute anyone in the Army or Pinochet himself. But looking forward instead of backward served my country well at the time.
sorry if this was OT and too long.
We have had, actually, more than 3 sane presidents in a row. We have had
Ed Marshall
Yeah, they aren’t crypto-GOP trolls, I’ve known people who were kicking around the blogs in the run up to the Iraq war who wound up being PUMA’s. No one runs THAT long a con. It varies case to case but a lot of them have a hairtrigger reaction to criticizing a Clinton. You criticize a Clinton and YOU are the crypto-republican. That’s why they sound so conspiratorialy crazy. Anyone who says bad things about them is on the enemy list so the current leader of the DNC (Obama) is actually an enemy mole.
Mike in NC
Uh, it’s not that anybody missed it. Nobody cares what some Palinite asswad thinks. Cocksuckers First!
Mainer
Talking of the Hillary cult, I go and check out Alegre every so often. http://alegrescorner.soapblox.net/She talks up Hillary constantly and always finds fault with something Obama’s done. She complained that he didn’t get rid of the gag rule on the anniversary of Roe and then complained that he issued the statement on the gag rule in the late afternoon. The other day she complained that Obama flew to Chicago for a few days and that the taxpayers had to pay for it – Evidently the president is supposed to fly coach and foot the bill (and maybe the bill for the Secret Service)?
Pathetic.
Laura W
@Elie:
Well, I dunno where you live but if the shit hits the fan and you can find your way to western NC, I will buy the groceries if you will cook. (Assuming you are not allergic to cats, of course.)
tomjones
@NonyNony: Awesome post. It is so rare to actually read a comment in a blog that illuminates an issue or makes one think about an issue in new ways, but what you said is really spot on. Thanks.
D-Chance.
Three things:
1) Franken won his election by a hair, just like Bush did in 2000 in Florida. Seat the damn new Senator, already. You LOST (this, directed at the Coleman and the Republicans), GET OVER IT.
2) The NYPost chimp cartoon. After 8 years of "Chimp-in-Chief", "Chimpy McBush", "Bobo", and the like… after the cartoons portraying Condi as Aunt Jemimah, or Prissy from Gone With the Wind… I don’t wanna hear it. Take the Lefty fauxrage and shove it. Shut… the Hell… up. You turned in and forfeited your Outrage Cards years ago; and no, you can’t have them back.
3) Bristol Palin. I want every right-wing moralist and every televangelist who mugged and hogged the microphones and TV cameras, fawning over her and her boytoy "doing the right thing" during the election campaign, to be out there right now issuing denouncements over her decision to NOT to marry with equal zealotry. And don’t give me the "hands-on father" crap… the baby-daddy is nothing more than a sperm donor; and she, a convenient easy lay. Now, where’s the decrying of this example of single motherhood, Brothers and Sisters? Feh.
Stuck
@D-Chance.:
You know D. I read one of Elie’s or valdivia’s thoughtful posts and then come across one or your screes, I know that Darwin was damn well right.
gbear
@D-Chance.:
How many of the liberal cartoonists gunned down the chimp? There’s such a fine line between clever and stupid…
valdivia
sorry guys for the editing faux pas.
Atanarjuat
@Chuck Butcher:
Chuckie, if "lay about pussy" means "lazy," then yes, most leftists are lazy, their grasping hands outstretched for government rewards they feel they are entitled to by the simple act of sucking in oxygen.
With the Porkulus Package, those very greedy hands will receive more redistributed wealth than you’ve ever dreamed of, thanks to a few strokes of President Barack Obama’s socialist pen.
As I’ve asked in a prior post, why so angry? Your pockets will soon be bulging with wads of cash, and it doesn’t matter that it was swiped… er, redistributed by those who actually worked for it. Relax, and enjoy all the benefits you’ve never had to lift a finger to obtain. Life is so incredibly wonderful for leftists today.
-Country First.
Atanarjuat
@Mike in NC:
Way to go to miss a point, Mike. But you’re a leftist body and soul; you’d never understand the point of anything that contradicts your conservatives-are-evil worldview if someone else put a down payment on a clue for you.
How typical.
-Country First.
gbear
Knowing that you consider all of that extra cash to be yours will bring me delirious pleasure as I wheelbarrow my wads all over town. Thanks loads, hon. I think I’ll spend it on my gay wedding.
-Fabulousness first.
Ed Marshall
I just survived this jaw-dropping series of layoffs at work, and everyone was sweating round 2. When round 2 came (maybe this has something to do with corporate headquarters being based out of socialist Sweden) what happened was all the management got canned except the office VP. That was two layers of them.
Nothing seems different at all and revenue is up. Not net profits, straight up revenue, which is insane in this climate. What the fuck were they doing in the first place? There seems to be negative value in their existence at all.
Having money doesn’t mean you do anything, and I’d wager you are either a parasite or a self hating prole. Get over it.
Elie
Laura W–
Lovely offer. I LOVE cats and can cook.
thank you for your kindness
burnspbesq
@gbear:
Don’t invite Atanwhatever to your wedding. He’ll drink all the beer and hit on all the gay women. It will be a disaster.
burnspbesq
@Atanarjuat:
We know that conservatives aren’t evil. Republicans are another story.
You wouldn’t know a real conservative if s/he bent over and kissed you on top of your pointy little head. There are no conservatives in the Republican Party, only crony-capitalists, theocrats, and miscellaneous wackos. All the real conservatives are Democrats now.
Kit Smith
@John Cole: John, I don’t care about IPs or e-mail addresses, I want some loony PUMA content. I don’t want to harass the deranged ones, I might get some crazy on me… what they have to say, though, that’s comedy gold.
Clio
@gbear:
Fabulously full of win.
Hey, Mister!
I used to visit a message board that has nothing whatsoever to do with politics. Shortly after Obama won the nomination we started seeing Clinton supporters post message after message bashing Obama. Some even criticized him for breaking his election promises long before he was inaugurated! What started as a trickle soon became a flood and it ruined the board. Most of the regulars, myself included, abandoned the place.
So I know all too well how a certain faction of Clintonites are absolutely, totally, unquestionably batshit insane and filled with impotent rage.
gbear
@burnspbesq:
It’s OK. We told him that the reception was at MSP. Main Concourse. We’re covered.
Chuck Butcher
@Atanarjuat:
"Chuckie" ? Well that’s ok, I use my actual name versus some made up stupidity based on an Eskimo movie. Pussy. I promise, 5 year olds have done much better than that.
[above that was an actual post, and then I realized what I was talking to – delete key is handy]
Chuck Butcher
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
@Atanarjuat:
stupid followed by stupidity
"Chuckie" ? Well that’s ok, I use my actual name versus some made up stupidity based on an Eskimo movie. P*ssy. I promise, 5 year olds have done much better than that.
[above that was an actual post, and then I realized what I was talking to – delete key is handy]
fine let’s see if an asteric helps
TenguPhule
Don’t be silly.
That happens after we hunt you in the Arctic with howitzers followed by the mandatory gay abortions for everyone.
Chuck Butcher
@TenguPhule:
Please I wanna come too. I promise not to use anything bigger than 45-70 and better yet it doesn’t need to be towed. Tell me they have to wear pink tu-tus. Oh this will be ever so much fun.
Are we almost there?
I need to pee…
How much longer?
Make Krista sit on her side…
Are we almost there?
Booooom!
{45-70s don’t go bang}
SLKRR
@valdivia:
Very interesting posts about Chile. I enjoyed reading them and getting your perspective. Muchas gracias.
And since I am an adopted Brazilian now, I feel that I can’t let this comment pass without mentioning: Sport Recife 2, Colo-Colo 1. ;-)
myiq2xu
Hmmm. You keep claiming that PUMA is a small and irrelevant group, but the longest thread on the BJ front page is a discussion of PUMA.
Until a couple of weeks ago Kevin K had devoted his blog to stalking PUMA (and his traffic has dropped dramatically since he outsourced the PUMA threads) and Lance Thruster spends more time trolling PUMA blogs than he spends here.
headpan
Personally, I’m going to take all that cash, dump it on the bed and roll around naked in it while my junkie boyfriend takes pictures.
gbear
You may have noticed that the thread went off topic a lot. It’s hard to maintain interest in PUMAs.
valdivia
@SLKRR:
thanks and that last bit, about Sport Recife: painful. ;-)
Kevin K.
Dramatically? Where’s your proof? Pretty much every poliblog’s traffic has dropped off since the election was over. There’s been no dramatic dropoff since we stopped pointing and laughing at you dimwits. You guys always point to comments as proof that you get a lot of traffic, but it’s pretty easy to punch those numbers up when you’ve got shutins like you and the other Efflucians treating the comments section like a chat room.
Behold the awesomeness. The January uptick for the Effluence was thanks to Wonkette rubbing your noses in it during the Weblog Awards. Badge of honor!
Persia
@J.D. Rhoades:
I’ve read that before too. Which is funny, because the PUMAs were the people insisting that Hillary could stand up to the Republicans, North Korea, Iran, et. al, but somehow Big Bad Barack Obama’s too much for her to handle. Now don’t get me wrong, he’s a savvy political opponent, but I can’t believe that he’s capable of stripping her of all agency and free will, and moreover, I find the assumption that she is some kind of hostage unbearably insulting and sexist.
Media Browski
@myiq2xu: Hey, it’s the rather famous PUMA slut-shamer, the one who says he likes to hang out with the older ladies because they’ll sleep with him!
Nice to see you!
binzinerator
Ah I see myiq, the Pete Puma of the PUMAs, has returned for some more lumps.